When it comes to this vocabulary, I also like to distinguish between the site's architecture and the user experience.
My experience has been that some larger "dynamic" back-ends, which had lots of infrastructure and complexity, took far more effort and time to update and iterate. The result being that the experience they provided was sometimes very static indeed.
Conversely, by being able to host a site statically, complexity can be reduced and iterations and update cycles can be far more rapid and regular. Leading to a site with fresher content, and a more dynamic experience.
Automation, and triggers, and modern workflows all allow a "static architecture" provide a more dynamic experience. And that's even before we add some of the things like serverless functions and calls to APIs from client-side js.
When it comes to this vocabulary, I also like to distinguish between the site's architecture and the user experience.
My experience has been that some larger "dynamic" back-ends, which had lots of infrastructure and complexity, took far more effort and time to update and iterate. The result being that the experience they provided was sometimes very static indeed.
Conversely, by being able to host a site statically, complexity can be reduced and iterations and update cycles can be far more rapid and regular. Leading to a site with fresher content, and a more dynamic experience.
Automation, and triggers, and modern workflows all allow a "static architecture" provide a more dynamic experience. And that's even before we add some of the things like serverless functions and calls to APIs from client-side js.
Loving this #jamuary series!
I really like this distinction! It helps clarify what we really mean when we say "dynamic"